It uses Obamas own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! Theres nothing like the ego of The One.

A lot of interesting falsehoods scattered among the historical facts in that link.

Assertion: Secession was Lincoln’s fault for being elected.
Fact: Pretended secession of several states took place before Lincoln took office. Lincoln can hardly be blamed for the Democratic Party’s breakup on the issue of slavery. Of course the southern partisan’s devotion to slavery can be blamed for the Democratic Party’s breakup.

Assertion: Ft Sumter was built on foreign soil.
Fact: Ft. Sumter was built on a shoal, built up with stone from NY and MA, with the cost borne by the Union, with most taxes collected in northern ports.

Assertion: US Constitution ended the Perpetual Union of the Articles of Confederation.
Fact: US Constitution itself states that it makes the Union “more perfect”. What union would that be? The existing perpetual union is the only one to hand.

Secession could be legally accomplished under the Constitution, but only certainly by amendment approved by 3/4s of the states, or by treaty or possibly by federal, or possibly by federal court case. Legal secession by federal action was thought to be so unlikely that illegal acts of secession were adopted, and armies raised by the south to support rebellion. Rebellion could have, if successful, led to a treaty with the US, giving legal status to the pretended Confederacy. Since they didn’t win their rebellion, they didn’t get that treaty, and thus remain an illegal nullity.

No contract can be abrogated at will by a single party to it. If it was so, then there would be no reason to have a contract. The US constitution has within it, means to resolve issues between the states, or between the states and the federal Constitution. Issues involving states are resolved with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.

Lincoln wanted to ship the ex-slaves back to Africa. Therefore, if Lincoln had lived, there would not have been any attempt to reinstate slavery and no need for the brutal policies of the Radical Reconstructionists.

My 2 cents on the Civil War: If the assassination of Lincoln and the rule of the Radical Reconstructionists. If both of those things hadnt happened, perhaps the divide that still exists wouldnt be there.

Perhaps, but I believe that the divide as demonstrated by the neo-confederates here represent a tiny fringe and nowhere any sort of mainstream.

Most northerners (and by northerners I mean the traditional northern states, the southwest, western, and pacific northwest states, as well as the majority of the border states and significant portions of several southern states) aren't preoccupied with the WBTS other than from a historical perspective. Lost Causers, on the other hand, are totally obsessed and allow it to figure into every aspect of their day~to~day lives.

So you have a truly transformative event like a civil war and the reconstruction in which the "conquered" were afforded the most tolerant treatment of any failed rebellion to date, fast-forward 150 years to see that same region prospering better than most of the country, and still you have some curmudgeons who lament the passing of the failed rebellion.

In the final analysis those contrarian Lost Cause Losers are so few in number that they have to shout and act disruptively or else you wouldn't even know they're there at all lol.

110
posted on 12/26/2011 4:22:19 PM PST
by rockrr
(Everything is different now...)

Perhaps, but I believe that the divide as demonstrated by the neo-confederates here represent a tiny fringe and nowhere any sort of mainstream.

Ahhh, another member of 'the collective' who abhors individualism, liberty, freedom and truth. We must all be part of your 'collective', eh! Have your brown shirts been delivered back to you safely from the cleaners, herr punkrr?

aren't preoccupied with the WBTS

And so says the ever-present queen of the neo-yank False Cause Losers.........

In the final analysis those contrarian Lost Cause Losers are so few in number that they have to shout and act disruptively or else you wouldn't even know they're there at all lol.

Don't forget to polish your jack boots. We want you to look your best when you and your band of neo-yank False Cause Losers mount up to silence anyone who refuses to accept the propaganda from 'the collective'.

So as far as the Civil War goes, I have no dog in that fight, never did.

So, the de facto repeal of the Tenth Amendment means nothing to you? You're an advocate for Big Gov and support the idea of the president being a term limited monarch? You're an opponent of states rights? You believe that might makes right?

The neo-yank False Cause Losers are gonna warmly embrace you into their coven..........my condolences.........

Most northerners (and by northerners I mean the traditional northern states, the southwest, western, and pacific northwest states, as well as the majority of the border states and significant portions of several southern states) aren't preoccupied with the WBTS other than from a historical perspective. Lost Causers, on the other hand, are totally obsessed and allow it to figure into every aspect of their day~to~day lives.

I guess you don't get it. I don't care what happened in the South beyond thinking that the death and destruction was unnecessary. I care about things here in the North. I see the North-South divide more as a FreeRepublic-DemocratUnderground sort of thing.

Actually, as I became interested in American History as an adult my focus was upon the Founding Era. I couldn't really understand why so many people made such a big deal about the "Civil War." But when I began to search for what ended so many of the principles the Framers enunciated and put into our Founding documents, most of the time that search ended with Abraham Lincoln. And so I began to read more. It's not pretty, but it is our history.

His intent to abolish slavery was an act of war. You yankee apologist don't realize that abolition translated into economic terror for the south. Such an act would have thrown the southern economy into depression of unparalleled proportion.

A good analogy, would be if some southern environmentalist in 1860 forced every manufactuer type industry in the north to close. How would have that have gone over?

124
posted on 12/27/2011 7:10:30 AM PST
by catfish1957
(Save a Pretzel for the Gas Jets!!!)

The amount of zealots on both sides of this for naught discussion is ridicoulous.

Hey bud, I have had so called freepers insult my CSA veteran ancestors with such vile, it was disgusting. Good reason there are no true conservative politicans in New England, and generally the north east for that matter.

125
posted on 12/27/2011 7:15:02 AM PST
by catfish1957
(Save a Pretzel for the Gas Jets!!!)

A conversation about right and wrong regarding a war that’s been over for 150 years is for naught to me. Two sides fought, one side won, one side lost. Both sides had massive amounts of blood on their hands. The loss of over 1 million Americans is disgusting, whether it was over states’ rights or slavery.

If you read my prior posts in this thread, you’d see that I’m pretty clear in calling the Radical Reconstruction as very bad for the country as a whole.

The civil war was the worst period in our nations history. Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.

In my humble opinion, everyone gets off track when we start to discuss how horrible the South was. Slavery was indeed an abomination, but the real issues are:

Did Lincoln have the constitutional right to force the Southern states to remain part of the union?

Should he have fought the war to keep these states in the union?

I think the answer to both is no.

First, any reading of the Constitution provides no authority for the federal government (which up to that time was viewed as an agent of the states) provides no authority for such an action.

Second, what would have happened if Lincoln just let the Southern states secede? How long would have slavery lasted? Would the South continued as a nation, or would some (if not many) rejoined the union over time? My guess is that the Southern economy was brittle and within a generation or two, modern technology would have made slavery obsolete. Also, some of the border states were in a position to go either way and given time to make a rational decision would have opted to remain in (or rejoin) the union.

1. Did Lincoln have the constitutional right to force the Southern states to remain part of the union?

The United States Constitution gives the president the authority and binds him to the duty to suppress insurrections.

2. Should he have fought the war to keep these states in the union?

When the South Carolina seceded Lincoln tried to keep from ratcheting up tensions in the hopes that cooler heads would prevail. When elements from the south initiated open hostilities his hand was forced. Failure to stop the rebellion in its tracks would have been the undoing of our nation.

Second, what would have happened if Lincoln just let the Southern states secede? How long would have slavery lasted?

The confederate constitution was a cobbled up copy of the US Constitution except for one notable addition - the memorialization of the Peculiar Institution. They designed their nation to be mortally wedded to slavery. One would not be able to survive without the other.

Also, some of the border states were in a position to go either way and given time to make a rational decision would have opted to remain in (or rejoin) the union.

The tensions instigated and fanned due to such a circumstance guaranteed a perpetual state of hostilities between the two entities.

131
posted on 12/27/2011 6:15:28 PM PST
by rockrr
(Everything is different now...)

So long as we all understand that the war was made by the southern rebels who fired the first shot and seized federal forts, that we all understand that the raised tariff occurred after the pretended secession, and could not have passed without secession, and we all know that the pretended secession of several states occurred before Lincoln took office.

Then we can agree that pretending to blame secession, tariff and war on President Lincoln is an act of desperation on the part of people who don’t really care about facts.

Lincoln drafted a House bill in 1849 to abolish slavery in DC. I hope you don't think the people of the south were so naive to think that the 1861 version of Lincoln (1000 x more powerful) would not have thought any different nationwide.

As far as your second comment, the philosphy of state's rights would precluded the south's intentions of expanding slavery northward. The states thought it was their business, not the federal goverment. This extension of the scope and breadth of federal involvement is the backbone of liberalism today.

140
posted on 12/28/2011 5:17:20 AM PST
by catfish1957
(Save a Pretzel for the Gas Jets!!!)

I can't confirm your quote, but given what I know of Napolitano, it could be something he might say. One reason I can believe it is because I heard him say, twice, that George Washington was called a "terrorist", and so I figure that Napolitano is generally prone to making historically inaccurate statements.

central_va: "Why is that so hard for some to understand? It is their inherit statist nature, the collective mentality, that won't let them understand, methinks."

Why is that so hard for some to understand -- that if you declare war on the United States, you will be defeated unconditionally, and no one will ever again pay serious attention to your claims of "states rights" to protect slavery, or your handwaving "statist" allegations.

cowboyway: "I've been using Napolitano because he's not Southern and his facts are completely irrefutable. You'll notice that brojoke attacked the man and not what he said; typical libtard tactic."

First, it's important to note that Napolitano is hightly respected among conservatives, but that he is prone to historical inaccuracies.

Second, the Napolitano material you quoted is not history, it's religion -- like the Apostles Creed among Christians, it represents the core foundation beliefs of our Lost Causer Religion: that secession was not about slavery, that the North started the war, etc., etc....

So we have debated all of these points, at huge length, across many threads. Napolitano adding his voice to the chorus neither increases nor reduces the validity of Lost Causer arguments.

It's simply important to note that whatever value Napolitano has as a conservative and judge, as a historian he's, well, weak.

I, for one, would rather have Judge Napolitano on my side. Unreconstructed history is hard to find in the mainstream. We are fighting a 150 year old fairy tale and brainwashing facilitated by the martyred Lincoln.

The Judge acknowledges there are two sides to the story and it isn't CRAZY to discuss all sides instead of just the fairy tale version.

First, it's important to note that Napolitano is hightly respected among conservatives, but that he is prone to historical inaccuracies.

Please tell us, what are the inaccuracies?

145
posted on 12/29/2011 5:54:52 AM PST
by central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

Obama's self-ranking is sincere, and reveals a LOT about his mind-set. He is black first, and an American second. Those four Presidents are all explicitly definied by what they did for blacks. Lincoln freed the slaves. FDR's New Deal cemented the Welfare State. LBJ's Great Society changed black culture and created the permanent dependent black underclass. Obama redirected more trillions towards blacks that the previous decades had, combined.

From the viewpoint of a black who simply wants "free" transfer payments, no obligations or responsibilities, no consequences for poor decision-making or bad acts, and wants to have no feelings of shame or regret for this lifestyle, those are the four greatest presidents ever. For them, Obama's statement is 100% correct... and that tells you much about who our President truly is inside.

146
posted on 12/29/2011 6:05:59 AM PST
by Teacher317
('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)

ml/nj: "But when I began to search for what ended so many of the principles the Framers enunciated and put into our Founding documents, most of the time that search ended with Abraham Lincoln."

Then you were reading pro-Confederate propaganda, not real history. Progressive Republicans and Democrats began to reform the United States about 100 years ago, with the income tax, direct election of Senators, Federal Reserve, and many other Federal-power-enhancing actions.

It's important to remember that from the time of President Washington to that of President Teddy Roosevelt, the Federal government consumed about 2% of the nation's GDP, more than that only to pay for wars. President Wilson's Progressive Democrats increased it to 3% before the First World War. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democrats increased it to 10% during the Great Depression. LBJ's Great Society Democrats began the rise to 15% (non-military) before our current President & Democrat Congress' increase to 20+% (plus 4% for military).

How much of that can be legitimately blamed on Abraham Lincoln? Zero, zip, nada.

How much can be blamed on Republicans in general? I say, maybe 10% of the growth in non-military spending.

How much can be blamed on Southern support for Progressive and New Deal spending programs? Let's put it this way: did any of those programs pass with no Southern support?

central_va: "The Judge acknowledges there are two sides to the story and it isn't CRAZY to discuss all sides instead of just the fairy tale version."

The quotes cowboyway provided us do not acknowledge "two sides to the story", rather, they assert as fact only the pro-Confederate Creed: that secession was not all about slavery, that the North started the war, etc.

As to what is, or is not, "CRAZY" -- for years now we have discussed, debated, argued or insulted our way through surely every item related to this subject. Does that make us all "CRAZY"?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.